IP: Science vs. the Bible: Debate Moves to the Cosmos

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

October 10, 1999



Science vs. the Bible: Debate Moves to the Cosmos


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Article *       New Mexico Bars Creationism From State 
Curriculum  (Oct. 9, 1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


By JAMES GLANZ

cientific lessons about the origins of life have long been challenged 
in public schools, but some Bible literalists are now adding the 
reigning theory about the origin of the universe to their list of 
targets.

Nearly overlooked in the furor over the Kansas school board's vote in 
August to remove evolution from its education standards was a 
decision on the teaching of the science of the cosmos. Influenced by 
a handful of scientists whose literal faith in the Bible has helped 
convince them that the universe is only a few thousand years old, the 
board deleted from its standards a description of the Big Bang theory 
of cosmic origins, the central organizing principle of modern 
astronomy and cosmology.

The Big Bang theory, based on decades of astronomical observations 
and physics research, suggests that the universe originated in a 
colossal explosion of matter and radiation some 15 billion years ago.

But "young Earth creationists," as they are generally known, have 
come up with their own theories to explain how cosmic history could 
be condensed into mere thousands of years. They are making this case 
in books, pamphlets and lectures, as well as on a number of Web sites.

Mainstream scientists consider their theories to be wildly out of 
line with reality, even though books describing them are often 
liberally sprinkled with references to authorities like Albert 
Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

As a result, physical scientists now find themselves in a fight in 
which they have seldom played a public role. They have responded with 
a mixture of disdain, disbelief and consternation, and the reactions 
have not been limited to physicists and cosmologists in Kansas.

"It's the denial of what understanding we have of the origin of the 
universe in terms of modern science," said Jerome Friedman, a 
physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was 
awarded a Nobel Prize in 1990 for collaborating in the discovery of 
the subatomic particles called quarks and is the president of the 
American Physical Society. "That's a terrible loss," Friedman said.

Hume A. Feldman, a cosmologist at the University of Kansas in 
Lawrence who has worked at Princeton University and the Canadian 
Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, called the matter 
"frightening."

"When I went into cosmology," Feldman said, "I never thought I would 
get involved in anything like that."
Feldman said that developments in his state bore a distant 
resemblance to the difficulties of political scientists under 
Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and that he feared that such 
pressures could impair the educational system.
But advocates of the creationist view say alarm over their theories 
is overblown. Steve Abrams, a member of the Kansas board and a 
veterinarian in Arkansas City who was among the leaders of the push 
to make the changes, said there were legitimate scientific doubts 
about whether the universe was more than several thousand years old.
"There is sufficient data to lend credibility to the idea that we do 
not have all the answers for teaching the origin of our universe," he 
said.

That sentiment was echoed by John W. Bacon, a board member from 
Olathe who also voted with a narrow 6-4 majority for the changes.

"I can't understand what they're squealing about," Bacon said of 
scientists who oppose the board's action. Millions or billions of 
years ago, Bacon said, "I wasn't here, and neither were they. Based 
on that, whatever explanation they may arrive at is a theory and it 
should be taught that way."

Those objections closely mirror criticisms leveled at evolution by 
its opponents. Alabama biology textbooks, for example, must carry a 
warning that reads in part: "No one was present when life first 
appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins 
should be considered as theory, not fact."

The Kansas challenge to the teaching of the Big Bang is not the first 
public objection to the theory on religious or political grounds. 
Three years ago, the school superintendent of a conservative county 
in western Kentucky ordered two pages that explained the Big Bang in 
grade-school textbooks to be glued together. The superintendent said 
that the Big Bang should not have been explained without including 
the biblical version of creation as well.

The change in the Kansas standards does not preclude the teaching of 
mainstream biology, physics or cosmology, allowing teachers to 
present alternative viewpoints if they choose to do so. But because 
the standards are used as the basis for state tests, the changes will 
probably have a practical effect on what is taught, said Bill Wagnon, 
a professor of history at Washburn University in Topeka and a board 
member who voted in the minority. Students' scores on those tests 
help determine whether a school receives accreditation from the state.

"The curriculum standards describe that process of what needs to be 
covered," Wagnon said.
So radical were the Kansas board's recommendations that it has been 
unable to publish its own standards, or even to display them on its 
Web site. That is because the standards include long extracts from a 
book on education standards that was published by the National 
Research Council. Because of its disapproval of the board's revised 
standards, the Council has refused permission for them to be 
reprinted.

Beyond the expunging of evolution, the board also took out references 
to the hundreds of millions of years of Earth's geologic ages and 
modified sections on using the slow decay of radioactive elements to 
measure the ages of fossils and other rocks.

Among the most striking changes was the removal of passages in the 
original standards dealing with the Big Bang. Cosmologists see ample 
evidence for that explosion in the present expansion of the universe, 
in a diffuse afterglow in space called the cosmic background 
radiation, and in the precise abundances of light elements like 
hydrogen and helium that were left over from the cataclysm.

Cosmologists have also calculated the way in which stars, galaxies 
and clusters of galaxies coalesced from slight ripples in the 
primordial soup that emerged from the Big Bang. To date, the results 
of those calculations match the precise observations of such 
structures in the heavens. Of course, for all its success in 
accounting for observations, the Big Bang is indeed just a theory, 
although it is one with few scientific dissenters.

The biggest problem for the young Earth creationists is explaining 
the time that has apparently passed since the light we see from 
distant galaxies was emitted. Given the constancy of the speed of 
light and estimates of the distance between Earth and faraway 
galaxies it is difficult to explain how Earth and the cosmos could be 
young.

But D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear weapons engineer at Sandia 
National Laboratory who is also an adjunct professor at the Institute 
for Creation Research near San Diego, thinks he has an answer. In an 
interview, he said that Einstein's equations of relativity, the basis 
of the Big Bang theory, could be used to construct a universe in 
which the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

Abrams said that in thinking about the Kansas standards he had been 
struck by Humphreys's book, "Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle 
of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe" (Master Books, fifth 
printing in 1998).
Humphreys's ideas "seem to be right there on the cutting edge, so to 
speak," Abrams said.
But most cosmologists say they are simply out of left field.

The theory relies on a peculiar feature of Einstein's equations, 
which predict that powerful gravitational fields can speed the 
progress of time and, in effect, make clocks run at different rates 
in different places. So Humphreys assumes that the Earth is close to 
the center of a structure related to a black hole, in which gravity 
is especially intense, so that billions of years could pass in deep 
space while only a few thousand years went by on Earth.

Such a universe "has clocks clicking at drastically different rates 
in different parts," Humphreys said in an interview.
Edward L. Wright, vice chairman for astronomy at the University of 
California at Los Angeles, said that there is no evidence that the 
Earth is at the center of the universe, or that such tremendous 
gravitational fields exist outside of ordinary black holes.

Moreover, Wright said, the acceleration of time would alter the 
vibrations of waves of light, shortening its wave length and turning 
it into deadly gamma rays. Bombarded by such radiation, he said, "the 
Earth would be sterilized."
Humphreys, whose research in cosmology is unrelated to his work at 
the lab, said other features of his model would prevent the frequency 
increase.

Abrams also cited a theory that the speed of light was almost 
infinitely fast in the past, meaning that the light from extremely 
distant galaxies could have reached Earth quickly and would not be 
billions of years old.
He referred to writings on this subject by Danny Faulkner, a 
professor of astronomy at the University of South Carolina's 
Lancaster campus and an adjunct professor at the Institute for 
Creation Science. In a telephone interview, Faulkner cautioned that 
he had merely been describing ideas put forth by other scientists in 
the creationist movement and was not certain that the changing speed 
of light was correct. Indeed, high-precision measurements of the 
speed of light and other crucial physical constants have revealed no 
detectable change in their values over recent time.
The debate over the age of the universe has exposed intense 
disagreements not just in schools but also among evangelical 
Christians.

"Often young-universe and old-universe creationists focus more energy 
on defending their respective positions than on reaching out to 
nonbelievers," wrote Hugh Ross, a former radioastronomer who is an 
evangelical Christian, in "Creation and Time: A Biblical and 
Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy" (NavPress, 
1994).
Ross thinks that a literal reading of the Bible can be reconciled 
with the Big Bang, but says that his views are distinctly in the 
minority among evangelical Christians. The six days of Genesis could 
stand for "six consecutive long periods of time," Ross said.

The importance of the issue for many Bible literalists means that 
cosmologists could face the pressures that biologists have dealt with 
since John Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee law against 
the teaching of evolution in 1925, said Eugenie C. Scott, executive 
director of the National Center for Science Education Inc., in El 
Cerrito, Calif.
"I don't think physical scientists are going to be immune to this," 
Scott said. "It would be very unwise for them to brush this off."